• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quebec to go for racist legislation?

[]D e e v e s

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
163
Reaction score
31
Location
Niagara region, Canada near USA border.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Parti Québécois (PQ) leader Pauline Marois claims her proposed Charter of Quebec Values shares a similar noble purpose, positing that by banning public sector workers from donning conspicuous religious symbols, Quebec’s secularized society will be prevented from relapsing into a religiously-dominated state*** — resulting in equality for all Quebecers.

I fail to see the reasoning there.
 
Maybe xenophobic, but I am not sure what they are talking about for
"conspicuous religious symbols" .
Doesn't Canada have Public Catholic schools?
I think it is a great idea, but many in the US would think that
stepped over the Church State boundary.
 
Is this a step to avoid Muslim immigration with the burkas and veils, etc. that have caused France so much trouble?
 
Is this a step to avoid Muslim immigration with the burkas and veils, etc. that have caused France so much trouble?

Because if it is, then it's OK?
 
I highly doubt it will pass since the Liberals oppose it and some of the PQ and the major cities in Quebec all oppose it and even then it can and will be declared unconstitutional by both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Marois said if it is found to be unconstitutional she will not use the notwithstanding clause. I find this ironic the PQ opposed the Liberal ban on face veils in public buildings like France's law because it infringed on religious freedom. If the Liberals can force an election it is also gone.
 
Last edited:
Is this a step to avoid Muslim immigration with the burkas and veils, etc. that have caused France so much trouble?

No the PQ opposed that law when the Liberals were in power this bans all religious symbols.
 
Last edited:
Maybe xenophobic, but I am not sure what they are talking about for
"conspicuous religious symbols" .
Doesn't Canada have Public Catholic schools?
I think it is a great idea, but many in the US would think that
stepped over the Church State boundary.

Yes we do but it is the constitution and we can't really do anything about it. Besides the lawsuits keep them in check and if they threaten to discriminate against anyone or anything the government just threatens to pull funding. Though all other religious schools are unconstitutional.
 
I just read that institutions can opt out of it and they will not strictly enforce it, so what is it the bloody point of the law?
 
Because if it is, then it's OK?

My guess would be advance notice to prospective immigrants so that there are no misunderstandings on arrival. What do you think?
 
My guess would be advance notice to prospective immigrants so that there are no misunderstandings on arrival. What do you think?


Not really. It sure doesn't jive with my understanding of "free excercise thereof..." Canada has different laws though.
 
My guess would be advance notice to prospective immigrants so that there are no misunderstandings on arrival. What do you think?

Well Quebec has a very serious problem with immigration in that it doesn't get enough of them. This law will reduce immigration even more and Quebec loses out on new doctors, daycare workers, and other workers. Quebec needs to be a more attractive to immigrate to. It is also unconstitutional.
 
Not really. It sure doesn't jive with my understanding of "free excercise thereof..." Canada has different laws though.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

From he Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms:
3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
 
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

From he Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms:
3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.


I figured the same basic thing was there, but I realized that I quoted the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
Prohibiting any regalia or attire that can be deemed as religious in public sector.

If this passes, Quebec is denying Canada's customs and religious freedom.

Quebec bill CHARTER OF QUEBEC VALUES to be voted on.

rather bigoted view don't you think?

The Varsity » The Charter of Quebec Values is not the new Bill 101

Far be it from me to be an apologist for Premier Marois, but the legislation isn't "racist" - religion isn't racial per se - and the legislation seems to be sweeping with a broad brush, not just attacking any one religion, so not "bigoted", in my view. It may be a sign of intolerance, but then Quebec Separatists have been intolerant since the moment they left the birth canal.
 
Not really. It sure doesn't jive with my understanding of "free excercise thereof..." Canada has different laws though.

One example given, which I hadn't thought about previously and is quite provocative, was a Jewish couple going to City Hall to get married civilly and the City official who performs the ceremony is wearing Muslim modesty coverings.

"Free exercise thereof" must also include "free exercise from" don't you think?
 
One example given, which I hadn't thought about previously and is quite provocative, was a Jewish couple going to City Hall to get married civilly and the City official who performs the ceremony is wearing Muslim modesty coverings.

"Free exercise thereof" must also include "free exercise from" don't you think?

Sure it does. I wouldn't have a problem with the couple in your example requesting a different official but anybody should be free to practice their own religion. Would this Jewish couple have a fit if the official was wearing a cross - a symbol of his Christianity? If so, should the official be stopped from wearing a cross? Good luck getting that one past American conservatives.

Of course neither of these officials is obstructing their ability to be married by a rabbi, which would be their freedom to exercise their religion.
 
Sure it does. I wouldn't have a problem with the couple in your example requesting a different official but anybody should be free to practice their own religion. Would this Jewish couple have a fit if the official was wearing a cross - a symbol of his Christianity? If so, should the official be stopped from wearing a cross? Good luck getting that one past American conservatives.

Of course neither of these officials is obstructing their ability to be married by a rabbi, which would be their freedom to exercise their religion.

Well, firstly, the legislation does prohibit the wearing of obvious displays of religion, and includes crosses and the Jewish skullcap that men wear, as examples.

Secondly, do you think a Jewish couple who asked for a different person to officiate over their marriage in such a scenario wouldn't be accused of religious intolerance and bigotry and when government is not supposed to promote any particular religion why should they be put in such a situation. Why should they be forced into a religious service when they don't want any religious component to their marriage and all of a sudden they find a devote Muslim woman officiating. It wouldn't bother me, but then no person should be put in that situation when accessing a secular goverment service.

Finally, the point isn't that people should have the right to exercise their religion - the point is that people shouldn't be faced with other people's religious displays when accessing government services. I could just as easily argue that the woman wearing modesty garments could get a job outside of government if wearing them is so important - no one is forcing her to work for the government.
 
Secondly, do you think a Jewish couple who asked for a different person to officiate over their marriage in such a scenario wouldn't be accused of religious intolerance and bigotry and when government is not supposed to promote any particular religion why should they be put in such a situation. Why should they be forced into a religious service when they don't want any religious component to their marriage and all of a sudden they find a devote Muslim woman officiating. It wouldn't bother me, but then no person should be put in that situation when accessing a secular goverment service.

Whatever they're "accused of" in a court of public opinion, they have the right to ask for someone else. Or should, at least.

Personally, I'm on the side of no outward religious symbols, but I don't think it would fly in the US. You see how the culture warriors scream when a business tells its employees they can't wear a cross. But that's a big difference between Americans and Canadians (That along with Timbits and a love for Don Cherry). Canadian government operates more on a European model than ours does, so the expectation of secularism is greater.
 
Whatever they're "accused of" in a court of public opinion, they have the right to ask for someone else. Or should, at least.

Personally, I'm on the side of no outward religious symbols, but I don't think it would fly in the US. You see how the culture warriors scream when a business tells its employees they can't wear a cross. But that's a big difference between Americans and Canadians (That along with Timbits and a love for Don Cherry). Canadian government operates more on a European model than ours does, so the expectation of secularism is greater.

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave the impression that this is popular with the Canadian public at large - it's actually quite controversial, as most things that Quebec Separatists propose. I was just stating the Quebec argument in favor of the bill - for me, I don't care one way or the other - I try to avoid government services as much as possible and avoid Quebec completely.
 
Prohibiting any regalia or attire that can be deemed as religious in public sector.

If this passes, Quebec is denying Canada's customs and religious freedom.

Quebec bill CHARTER OF QUEBEC VALUES to be voted on.

rather bigoted view don't you think?

The Varsity » The Charter of Quebec Values is not the new Bill 101

Sounds like a copy of French laicism here. I'm absolutely no fan of it but it's not racist or bigoted. It's more like taking the separation of state and religion to its extreme. The idea seems to be that people in their role as representatives of the state should appear religiously neutral, just as the state is religiously neutral.
 
Sounds like a copy of French laicism here. I'm absolutely no fan of it but it's not racist or bigoted. It's more like taking the separation of state and religion to its extreme. The idea seems to be that people in their role as representatives of the state should appear religiously neutral, just as the state is religiously neutral.

Then shouldn't apply to the legislators aswell?
 
The reason this is bigoted is that for the most part it seems to aimed at minorities like Sikhs, Muslims, and Jews. What is the issue with having a teacher or daycare worker wearing a hijab or a kippa? I can forgive some older Quebeckers for supporting this because they would still remember when Quebec was practically a theocracy. Actually there would still be a large portion of the Quebec that still remembers when religion ruled Quebec.
 
The reason this is bigoted is that for the most part it seems to aimed at minorities like Sikhs, Muslims, and Jews. What is the issue with having a teacher or daycare worker wearing a hijab or a kippa? I can forgive some older Quebeckers for supporting this because they would still remember when Quebec was practically a theocracy. Actually there would still be a large portion of the Quebec that still remembers when religion ruled Quebec.

As I said, I don't agree with this kind of law either. However, I'd see it as laicism, not necessarily with bigoted motives. If it were some kind of populist conservative anti-immigrant group proposing this, it would be a bit dodgy though.

So the legislators are still allowed to wear religious symbols? That's weird.
 
Back
Top Bottom